Posted on 03/17/2012 7:49:03 AM PDT by Chuckmorse
That's true and is the reason it is not done.
My point is an informed jury is an oxymoron. -Tom
Not correct. The OJ jury didn't rule that the State's law against murder was wrong. They decided for (insert motive here) they just didn't want to find him guilty.
The cases cited in the article above concerning the Fugitive Slave Act are a far better comparison. It was an unjust law that was without Constitutional basis.
The chances of any of us ever being empaneled on a trial where we disagree with the law to such an extent that Nullification is proper, are and I hope always will be very rare.
That said, I think it proper for jurors to understand their rights, and also know that they are not actors For the State, but are instead Watchdogs of the State. If the State goes too far with their laws, is is not only the juror's right, but also his responsibility to 'nullify' that law by finding the accused innocent.
In the end, the old "I was just following orders" excuse never works.
They ruled an obviously guilty person not guilty because of their own beliefs, which they put above the law. That is jury nullification to me. -Tom
The most that one individual can do is cause a mistrial. Then it will be up to the court to decide if the case is strong enough for a retrial with a different jury.
Nullification only comes into its own with a unanimous jury acquittal verdict despite the law and the evidence. During prohibition, many juries would just not convict, so the courts innovated the use of the “injunction” in so many ways that a rum runner could not avoid violating it. But if they did, they would go before *just* a judge, no jury, to face a charge of “contempt”, for which they could get a year less a day.
But the rules of jury trials are bizarre, to say the least.
For example, jurors may not consult the Bible in their deliberations, but they may flip a coin to decide guilt or innocence.
I was utterly horrified by a trial of a child murderer in California. The evidence was damning, and the defendant made it a point to “flip off” the jury. After the guilty verdict, one of the jurors remarked, “I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he flipped us off. Then I *knew* he was guilty!”
This was inadequate to overturn the verdict on appeal.
The fear of the abuse of nullification became pronounced when in many cities, black jurors refused to convict a black person for anything, using the excuse that too many black people had already been imprisoned, and that the system was inherently unfair.
Oddly enough, at least to some extent they had a point, in so far as the original intent of the idea of nullification. In pre-revolutionary Britain, there were cases where juries would acquit, but the judge would reverse their decision and direct them to convict. This was seen as an intolerable affront to the jury system.
Likewise, double jeopardy was seen as a way to prevent the crown from repeatedly trying someone until convicted. (It is noteworthy that double jeopardy has been repealed in Britain, after 200 years or more.)
Thus, jury nullification is one of the few special powers outside of the Bill of Rights, for ordinary citizens.
Well that is your belief Tom, but that is not what Jury Nullification is.
Maybe they expected, “I FEEL that sometimes it’s just what you want to do, and then it’s ok”?? That DA had been asking potential jurors, ‘How do you FEEL?” about all sorts of legal things. They were all falling into the feelings trap. I kept thinking, “Law isn’t about feelings; it’s just right and wrong.”
This is excellent. Nicely done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.